Talk:Check on It

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Check on It article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Check on It has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Check on It is part of the B'Day series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 16, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
September 9, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Beyoncé Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beyoncé, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beyoncé on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BeyoncéWikipedia:WikiProject BeyoncéTemplate:WikiProject BeyoncéBeyoncé
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

R&B and Soul Music High‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chart trajectory removed

In the words of user:FuriousFreddy: do we really need to know exactly how a song performed week-by-week on the charts, in the context of an encyclopedia article? Extraordinary Machine 14:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful information, but it isn't necessary. The perfomance of a song can be encyclopedic, but I'm not saying it will always be. I just think it's a refreshing add-on to an article – (empoor) 11:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with it, many other songs have trajectories, why not this one? -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 23:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Maybe it's not the most encyclopedic information, but it is useful – (empoor) 07:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia: we're supposed to summarise facts, not present them all no matter how trivial they are. Please think about this: would a typical non-fan of Beyoncé who came across this article want to know that the single was at number twenty-seven in its fourth week on the Hot 100? Or that it was at number twenty-one on the chart the following week? See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues. If a single's chart run was particularly good or bad, then the text can be expanded to reflect that, but we should try to avoid turning the article into a marketing report/scorecard-like overview of the single's performance. Extraordinary Machine 17:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong here according to WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:SONG. &mdash ShadowHalo 10:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

There is also controversy surrounding this song. It is speculated that the second verse is not sung by Beyonce, but by her Destiny's Child co-member Kelly Rowland.

That's an important part of the article. It doesn't say the second verse IS Kelly Rowland, but there are wide rumors on the internet and said by radio DJ's that point out the second verse is sung by Kelly. So, it's important to say this here, but that it's just alleged and not proven to be true.

There seriousls is no point in this piece of information. The song is sung by Beyonce herself. This rumour was something made up by Kelly Rowland fans to calm their bitterness about Beyonce having another number one. That is a fact. This statement makes the neutrality of the section disputed as it throws Beyonce in a negative light.

I actually like Beyonce a lot and was never a fan of Kelly, but the second verse sure sounds a lot like Kelly to me.

I'm sorry but IF that is Kelly, she doe not sing the entire verse Beyonce comes in "More patience you take might..." but it should be in the article as speculationsTommy22028 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabase

Three songs passed 200 million on Mediabase before this one: "Yeah!" "We Belong Together" "Shake It Off" This is the fourth.

Shake It Off: On September 15, 2005, "Shake It Off" passed the 200 million audience impressions mark according to Mediabase. It was the second single to do this, the first being "We Belong Together". -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think another article on Wikipedia is really the best source for statistics like that. Especially a Mariah article where her fans are easily tempted to edit her article to make it seem like she was the first to achieve that benchmark. "Yeah!" definitely passed 200 million on Mediabase

By now it has, and so has Mario's "Let Me Love You" and probably many other songs. So I have removed the "It is the x song to do this". -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, there was never a time when "Yeah!" passed the 200 million audience impressions mark; "Let Me Love You", on the other hand, may have most definitely. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article's from "07/12/2005" .. by now I'm sure that many more songs have passed the 200 million mark, but there's no accurate way (that I know of) to monitor them -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 00:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is too, Irreplaceable most definitely did, I'll look it up and put it in, love this song Check on It, love Beyonce! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.77.233 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of official versions

I've moved the list of official versions here, pending the addition of reliable sources that can be used to establish the notability of any of them:

Check On It (Pink Panther Version) (feat. Slim Thug & Bun B)
Check On It (Bama Boyz After Dark Remix) (feat. Slim Thug)
Check On It (Bama Boyz Remix) (feat. Slim Thug)
Check On It (Bama Boyz Reggaeton Remix) (feat. Slim Thug & Voltio)
Check On It (Grizz Remix) (feat. Slim Thug)
Check On It (Gantman Juke Mix) (feat. Slim Thug)
Check On It (Junior Vasquez Club Mix)

Check On It (Junior Vasquez Radio Mix)
Check On It (King Klub Mix) (feat. Slim Thug)
Check On It (King Klub Radio Mix) (feat. Slim Thug)
Check On It (Maurice's Nu Soul Mix)
Check On It (Maurice's Nu Soul Radio Mix) (feat. Slim Thug)
Check On It (Maurice's Joshua Dub)
Check On It (White Lion Reggaeton Remix) (feat. Slim Thug & Voltio)

In addition to being referenced, this list needs to be brought into line with the Manual of Style and other relevant policy and guideline pages before it can be re-added. Extraordinary Machine 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

picture

Shouldn't the top picture be the U.S. cover instead of the non-U.S. cover? I mean, it looks kind of weird because the caption says "non-U.S. cover". Someone should make that caption more detailed, like "Chinese cover" or whatever. 68.62.23.157 11:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Check on It

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Check on It's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nz":

From Beyoncé Knowles discography: "Discography Beyoncé". Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-07-10.
From If I Were a Boy: "September 13, 2009: New Zealand Gold Certification". Radioscope. Retrieved 2009-09-22.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Future Expansion

[1]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About.com

It would be good if the citations to Bill Lamb, an unreliable source, could be replaced with other sources. Adabow (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immoral song

The.song says women should get with gangsters. That is evil. People who fancy evil men are evil. It is evil.to fancy evil men. It is selfish, cruel, weak minded, entitled, narssassitic and evil to fancy evil men. If you support evil you are evil. JOEYTHEVIMSANTEPOET (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the article? Talk pages on Wikipedia are for improving articles, not criticizing its content, or in this case, a single lyric. ｡ 🎀 𝒫𝓊𝓇𝓅𝓁𝑒𝓁𝒶𝓋𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝒹𝓃𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉𝓈 𝟣𝟩 🎀 ｡ (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]